N Losses from an Andisol via Gaseous N₂O and N₂ Emissions Increase with Increasing Ruminant Urinary–N Deposition Rate

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors refer to existing studies conducted by others, but the research objective has not been clearly specified. This work can be regarded as fundamental research. The topic of nitrogen transformations from animal urine is extensively described in the literature. Unfortunately, this study does not bring new insights, and the authors have not presented them in a sufficiently clear manner.

In the results chapter, emissions of gases are presented in relation to 1 hectare per 1 day. However, there is a lack of information regarding the formula and assumptions used for these calculations. If we assume that the sample is small and represents a point discharge of urine onto pasture, it would be necessary to consider the average annual stocking density during grazing, the amount of urine produced by one cow during the grazing season, and the area affected by gas emissions in relation to the grazing area. Similar assumptions are crucial for the proper interpretation of results.

Figure 1 shows gas emission values over the period from the application day. The Y-axis is scaled in kg per hectare per day. However, the scale suggests that these values relate to an area larger than the point discharge of urine by animals. In subsequent days, there are additional urine discharges per hectare. Further calculations would be useful to demonstrate average values over the grazing season.

The laboratory model observing the phenomenon for the next 35 days does not account for atmospheric factors and the interaction between microorganisms and plants, as emphasized by the authors themselves. Repeating this experiment in a natural environment could yield different results. The authors' findings can only be attributed to a specific soil type.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your comments and constructive criticism of our manuscript.

We revised the manuscript accordingly and submitted a track changed version of the manuscript. Please find our detailed responses to your comments in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Line 2 N2O and N2, subscripts

Line 12 and following: (N2O): use subscript, also CO2, etc.

line 16: Urine-N: Please specify, is this urea, or other compounds?

line 55: where urine consists of over 70% of urea--> 70% by mass, or of all nitrogen?

line 60: 500 kg N ha-1: What would be the nitrogen intake per year? How much nitrogen will be washed away by rain?

line 93: consider the speciation, e.g. K+, Ca2+

Andisol: please explain briefly

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments to our manuscript.

We revised the manuscript accordingly and submitted a track changed version of the manuscript. Please find our detailed responses to your comments in the attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

After clearly defining the purpose and changing the units in the presentation of data, the work gained importance as a scientific study. Now it clearly presents the scope of the experiments carried out and the possibilities of using them in further research in this field. Doubts and, above all, inaccuracies regarding the suggested field research have been effectively eliminated.